CathInfo.com

So ... I occasionally have a look, but yeah ... at some point it just wasn't worth it.

I think the final straw was the fact that there's unabated slander here ... where random individuals, shooting from the hip, and with zero evidence, or even zero "cui bono" upon which they might even legitimately found a fact-based theory ... accuse, oh, Shia Labeouf of being a fake Catholic, Mel Gibson of belonging to the Illuminati, of Archbishop Thuc being insane, of Archbishop Thuc "withholding intention", attacking the Dimond Brothers for being "fakes", where in point of fact they're no more "fake" than 90% of the Tradional religious out there, and the same ones that derisively call them "Fred and Bob" because they don't like their opinions or just don't like them, and would never dare call one of Bishop Kelly's nuns "Nancy and Marge", of calling Archbishop Vigano a (literal) Sun-worshipping Masonic Satanist (based on nothing but sheer ignorance), and of slandering those of us who have a stricter understanding of EENS basically somehow relishing the loss of souls.  So, to make a point, I listed some of the public and well-known mistakes made by Bishop Williamson ... and my post was immediately censored, even though there was no slander, and in fact the whole point of it was that if we can be forgiving of Bishop Williamson (and I always have been ... recognizing that we're just human, and still having the greatest respect for Bishop Williamson -- I spent hours cleaning up his class lectures so they can be available for others to listen to), why is it OK to savage Archbishop Thuc?

On top of that, I just found that I was wasting my time ... where I would spend paragraphs typing out arguments in favor of my position for individuals who simply cling to their for emotional reasons to dismiss them with one liners, ignore everything I just spent time posting (falsely thinking that they were interested in sincerely trying to find the truth ... whether or not they agreed with me in the end) ... and simply repaste their original statement while ignoring the fact that I had refused most of it earlier.

Example:

Some posters says ... BoD was constantly and universally taught by the Church and unanimously held by the Church Fathers.

I then spent paragraphs detailing the actual evidence, or lack thereof, for that assertion, cleary demonstrating that the statement is untrue.

Then two posts later, the same posters simply re-types or pastes in:  "BoD was constantly and universally taught by the Church and unanimously held by the Church Fathers."

This literally began with the Dimond brothers and the St. Benedict centre.